Search
Employee wins sexual harassment case. (Employee is a prostitute)
[Cue music]
“Yes! Meyer is finally playing Five Finger Death Punch!”
— Not a single one of you
[Cue music]
— Not a single one of you
In a few weeks, the National Football League owners are going to consider a proposed rule governing the use of the “N”-word during a football game. If the rule goes into effect, any team with a player who uses the “N”-word during a game, will be assessed a 15-yard penalty.
Players, young and old, disagree on the rule.
Here are Michael Wilbon and Jason Whitlock from ESPN’s Outside the Lines debating the merits of the proposed new rule.
But, faced with those facts, that didn’t stop one employer from moving for summary judgment and asking the court to dismiss a female employee’s claims of sexual harassment.
Could the company have possibly prevailed? Find out after the jump…
Oh wait, before we jump, I left out the part where the plaintiff claimed that her male co-worker also told her, “I’ll have you cum before you get your pants off.”
And then there’s the time when that same co-worker said, “Hey! we got your Christmas present!” whereby he held up a vibrating tool and thrust it towards the plaintiff’s genitals.
And what about the other male co-worker who would routinely come up from behind the plaintiff, lean in and smell her in a sexual fashion while pushing his groin into her?
Or when another male co-worker said to the plaintiff, “I just like fucking with you, why would I want to get you fired? I would miss watching that ass of yours!”
Ok, now we can jump and play did the employer get the case dismissed on summary judgment?
Three years at this blog without discussing mohawk hairstyles in the workplace. Now, two posts in one week. Which reminds me of the time I dressed up as BA Baracus for Halloween in law school
Ah, yes. That mohawk….and BA’s fear of flying. Ties right into today’s post.
(I love it when a plan comes together)
That’s how I start my next oral argument when defending a claim made under the Americans with Disabilities that one of my employer clients regarded an overweight plaintiff as disabled.
So, who wants some of what I’m drinking today?
Hey, it’s peppermint tea, jerk! And I’m not pulling this blog lede out of my butt. Well, not completely, I’m not.
Here’s a little HR Pro Tip from your old pal, Eric.
If, around Halloween time, an employee requests permission to hand out bags of candy containing “gospel tracts,” which depict Muslims and Catholics and state that they should all go to hell, you just go ahead reject that religious-accommodation request.
(More on religious accommodations here)
Let’s assume that you run a factory in which employees are scheduled on one of two shifts: (1) 6:00 AM – 6:00 PM; or (2) 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
One of your employees comes to you with a doctor’s note which states that working the graveyard shift will cause the employee to suffer migraine headaches and insomnia.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that employers accommodate employees with disabilities if doing so will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of her job without creating undue hardship for the employer. One way in which an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee is through schedule adjustment or shift change.
Just a reminder that some managers still engage in really stupid behavior.
I was reading this case about an HR Manager of a dentistry practice.
Following an interview between a dentist in her practice and an African-American woman, the dentist allegedly commented to the HR Manager that the person would not be hired, as there were already too many blacks in Lewisville. The HR Manager then supposedly responded that “race is irrelevant.”
When your business offers a severance agreement to a departing employee, does it contain:
- a general release;
- a non-disparagement obligation;
Back in January 2011, when I had only one child and an Aston Martin savings fund, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP. In that case, the Court held that an employer violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if it takes action against an employee who is in the same “zone of interest” as another employee who files a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In Thompson, a company received an EEOC Charge of Discrimination and allegedly fired the employee’s fiancé in response. The Supreme Court held that, if true, this set of fact would amount to retaliation.
Now, fast forward to 2014. I have four children, I’m two Happy Meals away from declaring bankruptcy, and, last night, I dined on the leftover ketchup packets.